Chapter 4: Of the State of the Old Church, and of the Manner of Governing That Was in Use before the Papacy

Hitherto we have treated of the order of governing the Church, as it has been delivered to us out of the pure word of God: and of the ministries, as they were instituted by Christ. Now that all these things may be more clearly and familiarly opened, and also be better fastened in our minds: it shall be profitable in these things to consider the form of the old Church, which shall represent to our eyes a certain image of God's institution. For although the Bishops of those times did set forth many canons, in which they seemed to express more than was expressed in the holy Scripture: yet they with such heedfulness framed all their order after the only rule of God's word, that a man may easily see that in this behalf they had in a manner nothing disagreeing from the word of God. But although there might be somewhat wanting in their ordinances, yet because they with sincere zeal endeavored to preserve God's institution, and they swerved not much from it, it shall be very profitable here shortly to gather what manner of observation they had. As we have declared that there are three sorts of ministers commended to us in the Scripture: so all the ministers that the old Church had, it divided into three orders. For out of the order of elders were partly chosen pastors and teachers: the rest of them had the rule of the judgment and correction of manners. To the deacons was committed the care of the poor, and the distributing of the alms. As for the readers and acolytes, these were not names of certain offices: but those whom they called clerks, they trained from their youth upward in certain exercises to serve the Church, that they might better understand what purpose they were appointed to, and might in time come the better prepared to their office: as I shall by and by show more at large. Therefore Hierome, when he had appointed five orders of the Church, reckons up bishops, priests, deacons, believers, and catechumens: to the rest of the clergy and monks he gives no proper place.

Therefore to whom the office of teaching was enjoined, all them they named priests. In every city they chose out of their own number one man, to whom they specially gave the title of Bishop: that dissensions should not grow of equality, as it is wont to come to pass. Yet the Bishop was not so above the rest in honor and dignity, that he had a dominion over his fellows. But what office the Consul had in the Senate, to propound matters, to ask opinions, to go before the other with counseling, admonishing and exhorting, to govern the whole action with his authority, and to put in execution that which is decreed by common council: the same office had the Bishop in the assembly of the priests. And the old writers themselves confess, that the same was by men's consent brought in for the necessity of the times. Therefore Hierome upon the Epistle to Titus says: The same was a priest who was a Bishop. And before that by the instigation of the Devil, there were dissensions in religion, and it was said among people: I am of Paul, I am of Cephas, Churches were governed by common council of elders. Afterward, that the seeds of dissensions might be plucked up, all the care was committed to one man. As therefore the priests do know, that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him that is set over them: so let the bishops know, that they are above the priests, rather by custom, than by the truth of the Lord's disposing, and that they ought to govern the Church in common together. But in another place he teaches, how ancient an institution it was. For he says that at Alexandria, from Marc the Evangelist even to Heraclas and Dionysius, the priests did always choose out one of themselves, and set him in a higher degree, whom they named a Bishop. Therefore every city had a company of priests who were pastors and teachers. For they all did execute among the people that office of teaching, exhorting and correcting, which Paul appoints to the bishops: and that they might leave seed after them, they labored in teaching the younger men, who had professed themselves soldiers in the holy warfare. To every city there was appointed a certain country, that should take their priests from there, and be accounted as it were into the body of that Church. Every company (as I have before said) only for preservation of policy and peace, were under one Bishop: which was so above the rest in dignity, that he was subject to the assembly of his brethren. If the compass of ground that was under his bishopric were so great, that he could not suffice to serve all the offices of a Bishop in every place of it, in the country itself there were in certain places appointed priests, which in small matters should execute his authority. Them they called country-bishops, because in the country they represented the Bishop.

But, so much as belongs to the office of which we now speak, as well the Bishops as the Priests were bound to apply the distributing of the word and Sacraments. For it was ordained only at Alexandria, (because Arius had there troubled the Church) that the priest should not preach to the people, as Socrates says in book 9 of the Tripartite History. Which yet Jerome confesses that he dislikes not. Truly it should be counted monstrous, if any man had given out himself for a Bishop, that had not also in very deed shown himself a true Bishop. Therefore such was the severity of those times, that all ministers were driven to the fulfilling of such office, as the Lord requires of them. Neither do I recount the manner of one age alone: for even in Gregory's time, when the Church was now almost decayed (certainly it was much degenerate from the ancient pureness) it had not been tolerable that any Bishop should abstain from preaching. The Priest (says he in one place) dies if there be no sound heard of him: because he asks against himself the wrath of the secret judge, if he goes without sound of preaching. And in another place: When Paul testifies that he is clean from the blood of all: in this saying we are convinced, we are bound, we are shown to be guilty, which are called Priests, which beside the evils that we have of our own, add also the deaths of others: because we kill so many as we being lukewarm and silent do daily see to go to death. He calls himself and others silent, because they were less diligent in their work than they ought to be. When he spares not them, that did half perform their duty: what think you he would have done, if a man had altogether sat idle? Therefore this was a great while held in the Church, that the chief duty of the Bishop was to feed God's people with the word, or both publicly and privately to edify the Church with sound doctrine.

But whereas every province had among their Bishops one Archbishop: also where in the Nicene Synod there were ordained Patriarchs, which should in degree and dignity be above the Archbishops: that pertained to the preserving of discipline. However in this discourse, that which was most rarely used may not be omitted. For this cause therefore chiefly these degrees were ordained, that if anything happened in any Church, that could not well be ended by a few, might be referred to a provincial Synod. If the greatness or difficulty of the matter required a greater discussing, the Patriarchs were also called to it with the Synods, from whom there might be no appeal but to a General Council. The government so ordered many called a Hierarchy, by a name (as I think) improper, and truly unused in the Scriptures. For the Holy Spirit willed to provide, that no man should dream of a principality or dominion when the government of the Church is spoken of. But if, leaving the word we look upon the thing, we shall find that the old Bishops meant to forge no form of ruling the Church, differing from that which the Lord appointed by his word.

Neither was the order of the Deacons at that time any other than it was under the Apostles. For they received the daily offerings of the faithful, and the yearly revenues of the Church, to bestow them upon true uses, that is to say, to distribute them to feed partly the ministers, and partly the poor: but by the appointment of the Bishop, to whom also they yearly rendered accounts of their distribution. For whereas the Canons do everywhere make the Bishop the distributor of all the goods of the Church, it is not so to be understood, as though he did by himself discharge that care: but because it was his part to appoint to the Deacon, who should be received into the common alms of the Church, and of that which remained, to whom it should be given, and how much to every one; because he had an overseeing whether the Deacon did faithfully execute that which belonged to his office. For thus it is read in the canons which they ascribe to the Apostles: We command that the Bishop have the goods of the Church in his own power. For if he be put in trust with the souls of men, which are more precious, much more it is fitting that he have charge of money: so that by his power all things may be distributed to the poor by the Elders and Deacons: that they may be ministered with all fear and carefulness. And in the Council of Antioch it is decreed, that the Bishops should be restrained that meddle with the goods of the Church, without the knowledge of the Elders and Deacons. But of that point we need to make no longer disputation, since it is evident by many epistles of Gregory, that even at that time, when otherwise the ordinances of the Church were much corrupted, yet this observation continued, that the Deacons should under the Bishop be the stewards of the poor. As for Subdeacons, it is likely that at the beginning they were joined to the Deacons, that they should use their service about the poor: but that difference was by little and little confounded. But Archdeacons began then to be created, when the plenty of the goods, required a new and more exact manner of disposing them: Although Jerome does say, that it was even in his age. In their charge was the sum of their revenues, possessions, and store, and the collection of the daily offerings. Whereupon Gregory declares to the Archdeacon of Salon, that he should be held guilty if any of the goods of the Church perished either by his fraud or negligence. But whereas it was given to them to read the Gospel to the people, and to exhort them to prayer: and whereas they were admitted to deliver the cup in the holy Supper, that was rather done to garnish their office, that they should execute it with the more reverence, when by such signs they were admonished that it was no profane bailiwick that they exercised, but a spiritual function and dedicated to God.

Hereby also we may judge what use there was, and what manner of distribution of the Church goods. Everywhere both in the decrees of the Synods, and among the old writers it is to be found, that whatever the Church possesses either in lands or in money, is the patrimony of the poor. Therefore oftentimes there this song is sung to the Bishops and Deacons, that they should remember, that they meddle not with their own goods, but the goods appointed to the necessity of the poor: which if they unfaithfully suppress or waste, they shall be guilty of blood. Whereby they are admonished, with great fear and reverence, as in the sight of God, without respect of persons, to distribute them to whom they be due. Hereupon also come those grave protestations in Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and other like Bishops, whereby they affirm their own uprightness to the people. But since it is equity, and established by the law of the Lord, that they which employ their service to the Church, should be fed with the common charges of the Church, and also many priests in that age, consecrating their patrimonies to God, were willingly made poor: the distributing was such, that neither the ministers wanted sustenance, nor the poor were neglected. But yet in the mean time it was provided, that the ministers themselves, which ought to give example of honest sparing to other, should not have so much, whereby they might abuse it to riotous excess or deliciousness, but only wherewith to sustain their own need. For those of the clergy (says Jerome) which are able to live of the goods of their parents, if they take that which is the poor's, do commit sacrilege: and by such abuse they eat and drink to themselves damnation.

First the ministration was free and voluntary, whereas the Bishops and Deacons were of their own will faithful, and uprightness of conscience and innocence of life were to them instead of laws. Afterward when evil examples grew of the greediness or perverse affections of some, to correct those faults, the canons were made, which divided the revenues of the Church into four parts: of which they assigned one part to them of the clergy, the second to the poor, the third to the maintenance and repair of Churches, and other holy buildings, the fourth to the poor as well strangers as of their own country. For whereas the other canons, give this last part to the Bishop, that varies nothing from my above-said division. For they mean not that that part should be his own, that either he himself alone should devour it, or pour it out, upon whom or what he pleased, but that it should suffice to maintain the hospitality which Paul requires of that order. And so do Gelasius and Gregory expound it. For Gelasius brings no other reason why the Bishop should challenge anything to himself, but that he might give it to prisoners and strangers. And Gregory speaks yet more plainly. It is the manner (says he) of the see Apostolic, to give commandment to the Bishop when he is ordered, that of all the revenue that arises, there be made four portions: that is to say, the one to the Bishop and his family for hospitality, and entertainment: the second to the clergy: the third to the poor: the fourth to the repairing of Churches. Therefore it was lawful for the Bishop to take nothing to his own use but so much as were enough for moderate and mean food and clothing. If any began to exceed, either in riotous expense, or in ostentation and pomp, he was immediately repressed by his fellows: and if he obeyed not, he was put from his dignity.

As for that which they bestowed upon garnishing of holy things, at the first it was very little. Afterward when the Church became somewhat richer, yet in that behalf they still kept a mean. And yet all the money that was bestowed thereupon, remained safe for the poor, if any greater necessity happened. So when famine possessed the Province of Jerusalem, and the need could not otherwise be relieved, Cyrillus sold the vessels and garments, and spent them upon sustenance of the poor. Likewise Acatius, Bishop of Amida, when a great multitude of the Persians, in a manner starved for hunger, called together the clergy, and when he had made that notable oration, Our God needs neither dishes nor cups, because he neither eats nor drinks, he melted the vessels, to make thereof both meat and ransom for men in misery. Jerome also, when he inveighs against the too much gorgeousness of temples, does with honor make mention of Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse in his time, which carried the Lord's body in a wicker basket, and his blood in glass, but suffered no poor man to be hungry. That which I just now said of Acatius, Ambrose rehearses of himself. For when the Arians charged him, for that he had broken the holy vessels to ransom prisoners, he used this most godly excuse: He that sent the Apostles without gold, gathered Churches together without gold. The Church has gold, not to keep it, but to bestow it, and to give relief in necessities. What need is to keep that which helps not? Do we not know, how much gold and silver the Assyrians took out of the temple of the Lord? Does not the priest do better to melt them for the sustenance of the poor, if other relief fails, than an enemy a robber of God to bear them away? Will not the Lord say: Why have you suffered so many needy to die for hunger? and truly you had gold with which you might have provided them sustenance. Why were so many led away captive, and not ransomed? Why were so many slain by the enemy? It had been better that you should save the vessels of living men, than of metals. To these things you shall not be able to answer. For what would you say? I feared lest God's temple should want garnishing. He would answer: Sacraments require not gold: neither do those things please with gold that are not bought with gold. The ransoming of prisoners is a garnishing of Sacraments. In sum, we see that it is most true which the same man says in another place, that whatever the Church then possessed was the store of the needy. Again: that a Bishop has nothing that is not the poor's.

These that we have rehearsed were the ministries of the Old Church. For the other of which the ecclesiastical writers make mention, were rather certain exercises and preparations, than appointed offices. For those holy men, that they might leave a store for the Church after them, received into their charge, governance and discipline, young men which with the consent and authority of their parents, professed themselves soldiers of the spiritual warfare: and they so framed them from their tender age, that they should not come unskillful and raw to the executing of their office. But all they that were instructed with such beginnings, were called Clerks. I would indeed that some other proper name had rather been given them. For this name grew of error, or of corrupt affection: forasmuch as Peter calls the whole Church the Clergy, that is to say, the Lord's inheritance. But the institution itself was very holy and profitable, that they which would consecrate themselves and their service to the Church, should be so brought up under the keeping of the Bishop, that none should minister to the Church but he that were well informed beforehand, and that had from his very youth both sucked holy doctrine, and by severe discipline put in a certain continuing quality of gravity and holy life, and were estranged from worldly cares, and were accustomed to spiritual cares and studies. But as young soldiers are by certain [reconstructed: counterfeit] skirmishes instructed to learn true and earnest fight, so there were also certain rudiments, whereby they were exercised while they were Clerks, before that they were promoted to the very offices. Therefore first they committed to the Clerks the charge to open and shut the Church, and they named them Ostiarii, doorkeepers. Afterward they called them Acolythi, followers, which waited upon the Bishop in his household services, and did continually accompany him, first for honor's sake, and then that no suspicion should arise of them. Moreover that by little and little they might become known to the people, and get to themselves commendation: also that they might learn to abide the sight of all men, and to speak before all men: that being made priests, when they came forth to teach, they should not be abashed with shame: therefore place was appointed them to read in the pulpit. After this manner they were promoted by degrees, to show proof every one of their diligence in all their several exercises, till they were made Subdeacons. This only is my meaning, that those were rather gross beginnings, than such offices as were accounted among the true ministries of the Church.

Whereas we said that the first and second point in the calling of ministers, are, what manner of men they ought to choose, and how great a religious carefulness they ought to use in that matter: therein the old Church has followed the prescribed order of Paul, and the examples of the Apostles. For they were accustomed to come together to choose the pastors with most great reverence, and careful calling upon the name of God. Besides this they had a form of examination, whereby they tried the life and doctrine of them that were to be chosen by that rule of Paul. Only they somewhat offended herein with too great severity, because they would require more in a Bishop than Paul required, and specially in process of time they required unmarried life. But in the other points their observation was agreeing with Paul's description. But in this which we made the third point, that is to say, who ought to institute ministers, they kept not always one order. In old time, none was received into the company of Clerks without the consent of all the people: insomuch that Cyprian labors earnestly to excuse that he appointed one Aurelius to be a Reader without asking advice of the Church, because that was done beside the custom, though not without reason. For this he says before: In ordering of Clerks, dear brethren, we are accustomed first to ask you advice, and by common counsel to weigh the manners and deservings of every one. But because in these lesser exercises there was not much peril: because they were chosen to a long proof, and not to a great office, therefore the consent of the people therein [reconstructed: ceased] to be asked. Afterward in the other degrees also, except the Bishopric, the people commonly left the judgment and choice of them to the Bishop and the Priests, that they should examine who were meet and worthy: saving peradventure when new priests were appointed for parishes: for then it behooved that the multitude of that place namely should consent. Neither is it any marvel, that the people in this behalf was little careful in keeping their own right: for no man was made a Subdeacon, that had not shown a long proof of himself in his being a Clerk, under that severity of discipline, which then was used. After that he had been tried in that degree, he was made a Deacon. From there he came to the honor of priesthood if he had behaved himself faithfully. So no man was promoted, of whom there had not been indeed a trial had many years before the eyes of the people. And there were many canons to punish their faults: so that the Church could not be troubled with evil priests or deacons, unless it neglected the remedies. However in the priests also there was always required the consent of them of the same city: which the very first canon testifies in the 67th distinction, which is fathered upon Anacletus. Finally all the admissions into orders were therefore done at certain appointed times of the year, that no man should secretly creep in without the consent of the faithful, or should with too much easiness be promoted without witnesses.

In choosing of bishops the people had the liberty long preserved, that none should be thrust in that were not accepted of all. This therefore was forbidden in the council at Antioch, that none should be thrust in to them against their will. Which thing also Leo the first does diligently confirm. From this came these sayings: Let him be chosen, whom the clergy, and the people, or the greater number shall require. Again: Let him that shall bear rule over all, be chosen of all. For it must needs be, that he that is made a ruler being unknown and not examined, is thrust in by violence. Again, Let him be chosen, that is both chosen by the clerks, and desired by the people: and let him be consecrated by them of that province, with the judgment of the Metropolitan. The holy Fathers took so great heed that this liberty of the people should by no means be diminished, that when the general Synod gathered together at Constantinople did ordain Nectarius, they would not do it without the allowance of the whole clergy and people: as they testified by their letter to the Synod at Rome. Therefore when any bishop did appoint a successor to himself, it was not otherwise established, unless the whole people did confirm it. Of which you have not only an example, but also the very form in Augustine in the naming of Eradius. And Theodorite, when he rehearses that Peter was named by Athanasius to be his successor, immediately adds that the order of priests confirmed it, and the magistrate, and nobility, and the people approved it with their allowing shout.

I grant indeed that this also was by very good reason established in the council at Laodicea, that the election should not be left to multitudes. For it scarcely happens at any time, that so many heads should well order any thing with one meaning: and commonly this is true, that the uncertain commonality is divided into contrary affections. But for this peril there was used a very good remedy. For first the clerks only did choose: whom they had chosen they presented to the magistrate, or to the senate and chief men of the people. They, after consultation had, if they thought the election good, confirmed it: if not, they did choose another, whom they did rather allow. Then the matter was moved to the multitude, which although they were not bound to those fore-judgments, yet thereby they could the less be disordered. Or if they began at the multitude: that was done only to learn whom they did chiefly desire. When the desires of the people were heard, then they of the clergy did choose him. So neither was it lawful for the clergy to appoint whom they wished, neither were they bound to obey the foolish desires of the people. Leo appoints this order in another place, when he says: There are to be looked for, both the desires of the citizens, the people's testimonies, the judgment of the honorable, and the election of the clerks. Again: Let there be held the testimony of the honorable, the subscription of the clerks, the consent of the order and commonality. No reason, says he, suffers it to be otherwise done. And nothing else means that decree of the Synod at Laodicea, but that the clergy, and chief of the people, should not suffer themselves to be carried away by the indiscreet multitude: but rather that with their wisdom and gravity they should repress the people's foolish affections, if at any time need should so require.

This order of choosing was yet in force in the time of Gregory: and it is likely that it endured long after. There remain many letters of his, that give evident testimony of this matter. For so often as he has to do with the creating of any new bishop, he uses to write to the clergy, to the order, and to the people, and sometimes also to the ruler, according as the government of the city is appointed. But if by reason of the disordered state of the church, he commits to any bishop adjoining the charge of overseeing in the election, yet he always requires a solemn decree strengthened with the subscriptions of all. Indeed when there was one Constantius created bishop at Milan, and many of the Milanese were by reason of the invasion of the barbarous nations fled to Genoa: he thought that the election could not otherwise be lawful, unless they also were called together and gave their assent. Indeed there are not yet five hundred years past, since Pope Nicolas decreed thus of the election of the bishop of Rome: that the cardinal bishops should begin, then that they should join to them the rest of the clergy, last of all that the election should be confirmed by the consent of the people. And in the end he recites that decree of Leo, which I even now alleged, and commands it from then forth to be in force. But if the malice of wicked men shall so prevail, that the clerks to make a true election be compelled to depart out of the city: yet he commands that some of the people be present with them. As for the Emperor's consent, so far as I can perceive, was required only in two churches, that is, Rome and Constantinople: because there were the two seats of the Empire. For whereas Ambrose was sent to Milan with a power from Valentinian to govern the election of the new bishop: that was extraordinarily done, by reason of grievous factions with which the citizens then boiled among themselves. But at Rome in old time the Emperor's authority was of so great force in creating of the bishop, that Gregory says, that he was set by his commandment in the government of the church: when yet by solemn usage he was desired by the people. This was the manner, that when the clergy and the people had appointed any bishop, the clergy should immediately move it to the Emperor, that he should either by his allowance confirm the election, or by disallowance undo it. Neither are the decrees that Gratian gathers together, repugnant to this custom: wherein is nothing else said, but that it is in no wise to be suffered, that taking away the canonical election, a king should appoint a bishop after his own pleasure: and that the Metropolitan should consecrate none that were so promoted by violent powers. For it is one thing to spoil the church of her right, that all should be transferred to the pleasure of one man: and another thing to grant this honor to a king or an Emperor, that by his authority he may confirm a lawful election.

Now it follows, that we treat, with what form the ministers of the Church were admitted into their office after election: this the Latins called Ordination or Consecration: the Greeks have called it Cheirotonia, lifting up of hands, and sometimes also Cheirothesia, laying on of hands. However, Cheirotonia is properly called that kind of election, where men's consents are declared by holding up of their hands. There remains a decree of the Nicene council, that the Metropolitan should meet together with all the Bishops of the province to ordain him that is chosen. But if some of them be hindered either by length of the way, or by sickness, or by any necessity, that yet three at the least should meet: and that they that are absent should by letters testify their consent. And this Canon, when with discontinuance it grew out of use, was afterward renewed with many Synods. But all, or at least as many as had no excuse, were therefore commanded to be present, that they might have the graver trial of the learning and manners, of him that was to be ordained: for the matter was not done without trial. And it appears by Cyprian's words, that in the old time they were accustomed not to be called after the election, but to be present at the election: and to this end that they should be as it were governors, that nothing should be troublesomely done in the multitude. For where he said that the people have power either to choose worthy Priests, or to refuse unworthy, within a little after he adds: Therefore according to the tradition of God and of the Apostles, it is to be diligently kept and held (which is yet held with us also and in a manner throughout all provinces) that for the right celebration of ordinations, all the bishops adjoining of the same province should come together to that people for which a governor is ordained, and that the Bishop be chosen in presence of the people. But when they were sometimes slowly gathered together, and there was peril lest some would abuse that delay to occasion of ambitious suing: it was thought that it should be enough if after the election made, they should meet and after allowance upon lawful examination consecrate him.

When this was each where done without exception, by little and little a diverse manner grew in use, that they which were chosen should resort to the Metropolitan city to fetch their ordination. Which came to pass rather by ambition, and by depravation of the first institution, than by any good reason. And not long after, when the authority of the see of Rome was now increased, there came in place yet a worse custom, that the Bishops almost of all Italy should fetch their consecration from there. Which we may note out of the Epistles of Gregory. Only a few cities, which did not so easily give place, had their ancient right preserved: as there is an example had of Milan. Perhaps the only Metropolitan cities kept their privilege. For all the Bishops of the province were accustomed to come together to the chief city to consecrate the Archbishop. But the Ceremony was laying on of hands. For I read of no other Ceremonies used: except that in the solemn assembly the Bishops had a certain apparel whereby they might be distinctly known from other Priests. They ordained also Priests and Deacons with only laying on of hands. But every Bishop with the company of Priests ordained his own Priests. But although they did all the same thing: yet because the Bishop went before, and it was all done as it were by his guiding, therefore the ordination was called his. Whereupon the old writers have often this saying: that a Priest differs from a Bishop in no other thing, but because he has not the power of ordaining.

We have so far treated the order of church governance as delivered to us from the pure word of God, and the ministries as they were instituted by Christ. Now, to open all of this more clearly and make it stick more firmly in our minds, it will be helpful to look at the practice of the ancient church, which presents us with a visible picture of God's institution. For although the bishops of those times published many canons that seemed to go beyond what Scripture expressly stated, they shaped their entire order so carefully according to the rule of God's word alone that one can easily see they had virtually nothing in this area that conflicted with it. And although some aspects of their ordinances may have been lacking, their sincere zeal to preserve God's institution — from which they did not stray far — makes it very profitable to briefly survey what their practice looked like. Just as we have shown that Scripture commends to us three kinds of ministers, so the ancient church organized all its ministers into three orders. From the order of elders, some were chosen to be pastors and teachers; the rest exercised oversight in matters of conduct and discipline. The deacons were charged with the care of the poor and the distribution of charitable funds. As for readers and acolytes, these were not names of established offices — rather, those called 'clergy' were trained from youth in certain duties of church service, so they would better understand the purpose they were being prepared for, and in time come better equipped to their office, as I will explain more fully shortly. Therefore when Jerome enumerated five orders of the church, he listed bishops, priests, deacons, believers, and catechumens — and assigned no proper place to the rest of the clergy or to monks.

All those appointed to the office of teaching were called priests. In each city they chose one from their number and gave him specifically the title of bishop — to prevent the conflicts that arise from strict equality. Yet the bishop was not so elevated above the others in honor and dignity that he exercised dominion over his colleagues. Rather, he held the same role among the assembly of priests that a consul held in the senate — to introduce matters for discussion, to call for opinions, to lead the others through counsel, admonition, and exhortation, to govern the whole proceeding with his authority, and to carry out what was decided by common council. The ancient writers themselves acknowledge that this arrangement was introduced by human agreement out of practical necessity. Jerome, commenting on the letter to Titus, says: 'The one who was a bishop was the same as one who was a priest. And before divisions were stirred up by the devil and people were saying, "I am of Paul, I am of Cephas," churches were governed by the common council of elders. Then, in order to uproot the seeds of division, all authority was committed to one person. Therefore, just as the priests know that by the custom of the church they are subject to him who is set over them, so let the bishops know that they are above the priests more by custom than by the Lord's actual appointment, and that they ought to govern the church together in common.' In another place Jerome shows how ancient this institution was, saying that in Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist through to Heraclas and Dionysius, the priests always chose one from their own number and placed him in a higher position, calling him a bishop. Every city therefore had a company of priests who served as pastors and teachers. They all exercised among the people the work of teaching, exhorting, and correcting that Paul assigns to bishops — and to raise up the next generation, they labored in training younger men who had committed themselves to service in the Lord's cause. Each city was assigned a surrounding district, which drew its priests from that church and was considered part of its body. Each company, as I have said, was for the sake of order and peace placed under one bishop, who was elevated above the rest in dignity while remaining subject to the assembly of his fellow priests. If the territory under a bishop's oversight was so large that he could not personally discharge all his episcopal duties in every part of it, priests were assigned to serve in certain rural locations and carry out his authority in minor matters. These were called country-bishops, because they represented the bishop in the surrounding territory.

As far as the duties of this office were concerned, both bishops and priests were obligated to distribute the word and administer the sacraments. The restriction against priests preaching to the people was instituted only at Alexandria — because Arius had troubled the church there — as Socrates records in Book 9 of the Tripartite History. Jerome himself confesses he does not approve even of that restriction. It would have been considered monstrous for any man to present himself as a bishop without actually proving himself a true bishop in deed. Such was the rigor of those times that all ministers were pressed to fulfill the very office the Lord requires of them. Nor am I describing the practice of only one era — even in Gregory's time, when the church had already nearly decayed (certainly it had greatly declined from its ancient purity), it would have been intolerable for any bishop to refrain from preaching. Gregory writes in one place: 'The priest dies if no voice of his is heard — for he invites against himself the wrath of the hidden judge when no sound of preaching goes forth from him.' And in another place: 'When Paul testifies that he is clean from the blood of all, this saying convicts us, binds us, and shows us guilty — we who are called priests — for beyond the evils of our own sins, we add the deaths of others; for we kill as many as we, being lukewarm and silent, daily see going to destruction.' He called himself and others 'silent' because they were less diligent in their work than they ought to have been. When he did not spare those who were only half performing their duty — what do you think he would have said about someone who was idle altogether? It was therefore long held in the church that the chief duty of a bishop was to feed God's people with the word and to build up the church with sound doctrine, both publicly and privately.

Each province had among its bishops an archbishop, and the Nicene Synod also ordained patriarchs who ranked above the archbishops in degree and dignity — all of this was for the maintenance of discipline. Yet in this discussion the most important feature must not be omitted. These ranks were established primarily so that if anything arose in any church that could not be properly settled by a few, it could be referred to a provincial synod. If the magnitude or difficulty of the matter required broader deliberation, the patriarchs were called together with the synods — and from their judgment there was no further appeal except to a general council. Some called this form of governance a 'hierarchy' — a term I consider improper, and one that is genuinely absent from Scripture. The Holy Spirit purposely avoided any language that might conjure up images of principality or dominion when speaking of the governance of the church. But if we set aside the word and look at the thing itself, we will find that the ancient bishops intended to establish no form of church governance that differed from what the Lord appointed in His word.

The order of deacons at that time was no different from what it had been under the apostles. They received the daily offerings of the faithful and the church's annual revenues, and administered them to their proper uses — distributing them partly to support the ministers and partly to care for the poor — under the direction of the bishop, to whom they also rendered yearly accounts of their distributions. When the canons everywhere name the bishop as the one in charge of all church goods, this does not mean he personally discharged this care himself — rather, it was his role to direct the deacon in determining who should be received into the church's common assistance, what should be given from the remainder, and how much should go to each person, and to oversee whether the deacon was faithfully carrying out his duties. The canons attributed to the apostles state it this way: 'We command that the bishop have the goods of the church in his own charge. For if he is entrusted with souls, which are more precious, how much more is it fitting that he have charge of money — so that through his authority all things may be distributed to the poor through the elders and deacons, ministered with all fear and care.' The Council of Antioch decreed that bishops should be restrained from handling church goods without the knowledge of the elders and deacons. This point needs no lengthy debate, since many of Gregory's letters make clear that even in his time — when church ordinances were otherwise greatly corrupted — the practice continued that deacons, under the bishop's oversight, served as stewards for the poor. As for subdeacons, they were most likely originally joined to the deacons to assist in work among the poor, though this distinction gradually blurred. Archdeacons began to be appointed when the volume of church property required a more careful system of administration — though Jerome says this was already in place in his own time. The archdeacons were responsible for revenues, properties, stores, and the collection of daily offerings. Gregory accordingly told the archdeacon of Salon that he would be held accountable if any church goods were lost through his fraud or negligence. The privilege given to archdeacons of reading the Gospel to the people, exhorting them to prayer, and presenting the cup at the holy Supper was given to dignify their office — reminding them by such signs that theirs was no secular stewardship but a spiritual function dedicated to God.

From this we can also judge what the practice was — and what the standard of distribution — for church goods. In synod decrees and among the ancient writers everywhere, it is established that whatever the church possessed, in land or in money, was the patrimony of the poor. Therefore bishops and deacons were constantly reminded that they were not handling their own property, but goods designated for the needs of the poor — and that if they faithlessly suppressed or wasted these goods, they would be guilty of bloodshed. This awareness was meant to lead them to distribute with great fear and reverence before God, without partiality, to those who truly had need. From this come those solemn declarations of personal integrity by Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and other bishops of that caliber. But since it is both equitable and established by the Lord's law that those who serve the church should be supported from the church's common funds — and since many priests of that age voluntarily consecrated their own inheritances to God and embraced poverty willingly — the distribution was such that neither the ministers went without sustenance nor the poor were neglected. Yet it was also ensured that the ministers themselves — who ought to set an example of modest simplicity — were not given so much that they could indulge in riotous excess or luxury, but only enough to meet their genuine needs. 'Those clergy,' says Jerome, 'who are capable of living from their parents' property, if they take what belongs to the poor, commit sacrilege — and by such abuse they eat and drink judgment upon themselves.'

At first the administration was free and voluntary — bishops and deacons served from a willing conscience, and integrity of life served in place of written laws. Afterward, when the greed and disordered desires of some produced bad examples that needed correction, canons were drawn up dividing the church's revenues into four parts: one assigned to the clergy, one to the poor, one to the maintenance and repair of church buildings and other holy structures, and one to the poor — both local and visiting strangers. Where other canons give this fourth portion to the bishop, this does not conflict with my division above. The intent was not that it should be his personal property to consume or distribute as he pleased, but that it should be enough to maintain the hospitality that Paul requires of that office. This is how Gelasius and Gregory explain it. Gelasius gives no other reason for the bishop to retain anything for himself except to give it to prisoners and strangers. Gregory speaks even more plainly: 'It is the custom of the apostolic see to direct that when a bishop is ordained, the revenues should be divided into four portions: one for the bishop and his household for hospitality and reception of guests, one for the clergy, one for the poor, and one for the repair of churches.' The bishop, therefore, was permitted to take for his own use only enough for modest, ordinary food and clothing. If any bishop began to exceed these limits — whether through extravagant spending or ostentatious display — he was immediately rebuked by his colleagues. If he refused to listen, he was removed from office.

As for what was spent on adorning sacred things, at first it was very little. As the church grew somewhat wealthier, a measure of restraint was still maintained even in this area. And whatever was spent on such adornments remained, in cases of greater necessity, available for the poor. So when famine struck the province of Jerusalem and there was no other way to relieve the need, Cyril sold the sacred vessels and vestments and used the proceeds to feed the poor. Similarly, Acacius, bishop of Amida, when a great crowd of Persians were nearly starving, called together the clergy and made that memorable speech: 'Our God needs neither dishes nor cups, for He neither eats nor drinks' — and then melted down the sacred vessels to provide both food and ransom for people in misery. Jerome also, when condemning the excessive splendor of churches, speaks with honor of Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse in his own time — who carried the Lord's body in a wicker basket and His blood in a glass vessel, yet let no poor person go hungry. What Acacius did, Ambrose recounts of himself as well. When the Arians accused him of breaking sacred vessels to ransom prisoners, he offered this most godly defense: 'He who sent the apostles without gold gathered the churches without gold. The church has gold, not to keep it, but to spend it and to give relief in time of need. What is the point of hoarding what helps no one? Do we not know how much gold and silver the Assyrians carried away from the temple of the Lord? Does not the priest do better to melt it for the sustenance of the poor, when no other relief is available, than for an enemy and a robber of God to carry it away? Will not the Lord say: Why did you let so many in need die of hunger, when you had gold with which you could have provided for them? Why were so many led away captive and not ransomed? Why were so many killed by the enemy? It would have been better to preserve the vessels of living men than those of metal. To all this you will have no answer. What will you say? I feared that God's temple should lack its adornment. He will answer: Sacraments need no gold, and things that are not bought with gold are not made more pleasing by gold. The ransoming of captives is the true adornment of the sacraments.' In short, we see how true is what Ambrose himself says elsewhere: that whatever the church possessed was the treasury of the needy — and that a bishop has nothing that does not belong to the poor.

The ministries we have described were those of the ancient church. The others mentioned by ecclesiastical writers were more like exercises and preparation than properly established offices. Those holy men, to ensure a future supply of trained workers for the church, accepted young men into their care, governance, and instruction — young men who, with their parents' consent and approval, had professed themselves soldiers of the spiritual calling. They shaped these young men from their earliest years so they would not come unprepared and inexperienced to the duties of their office. All who were trained under this system were called 'clergy.' I wish some other term had been given them, for this name arose from an error or misunderstanding — since Peter uses the word 'clergy' for the whole church, meaning the Lord's own inheritance. But the institution itself was excellent and profitable: those who would consecrate themselves and their service to the church were raised up under the bishop's oversight, so that no one would minister to the church without thorough preparation. From earliest youth they absorbed holy doctrine, through strict discipline developed a settled disposition of gravity and holy living, were weaned from worldly concerns, and were formed in spiritual duties and studies. Just as young soldiers are trained in practice skirmishes before being sent into real combat, so there were certain preparatory exercises in which the clergy were trained before being advanced to actual offices. First, the care of opening and closing the church was entrusted to the clerks — these were called 'ostiarii,' or doorkeepers. Then came those called 'acolytes,' or attendants, who accompanied the bishop in his household duties and remained in constant company with him — partly for the honor it conferred, partly to prevent any grounds for suspicion. So they would gradually become known to the people and earn a good reputation, and would learn to stand before others and speak in public without being overwhelmed by embarrassment when they eventually came forward to teach as priests — a place was assigned to them to read from the pulpit. In this way they were advanced step by step, each demonstrating diligence in all these preparatory exercises, until they reached the rank of subdeacon. My point is simply this: these were training stages and preparatory roles rather than recognized offices within the proper ministry of the church.

We said that the first and second points in calling ministers concern the kind of men to be chosen and the careful reverence with which the process is to be conducted. In these matters, the ancient church followed Paul's prescribed order and the apostles' example. They customarily gathered to choose pastors with great reverence and earnest calling on the name of God. They also had a formal examination by which they tested the life and doctrine of candidates according to Paul's standard. Their only misstep in this regard was a somewhat excessive strictness — they required more of a bishop than Paul required, and in later times especially insisted on celibacy. But in other respects their practice conformed to Paul's description. As for the third point — who ought to appoint ministers — they did not always maintain a consistent order. In ancient times no one was received into the order of clergy without the consent of all the people. Cyprian labored to justify an exception when he appointed one Aurelius as a reader without first consulting the church, acknowledging it was irregular, however not without reason. He wrote: 'In ordaining the clergy, dear brothers, we are accustomed first to seek your advice and by common counsel to weigh the character and conduct of each candidate.' But because in these lesser preparatory roles the risk was minimal — since they were chosen for a long period of proof rather than for a significant office — the practice of seeking the people's consent for them gradually lapsed. In the higher orders as well, apart from the bishopric, the people generally left the assessment and selection to the bishop and priests, who examined who was suitable and worthy — except perhaps when new priests were being assigned to particular parishes, where it was proper for the local congregation to give its approval. It is no wonder the people were not vigilant in pressing their right in this matter — for no one was made a subdeacon who had not already given long proof of himself as a clerk under the strict discipline then practiced. After being tested in that role, he was advanced to deacon. From there he moved to the honor of the priesthood, if he had served faithfully. So no one was promoted without having been genuinely tested over many years before the eyes of the people. Many canons governed the punishment of misconduct, so that the church need not be troubled by wicked priests or deacons if it made use of the remedies available. For priests, moreover, the consent of the people of the same city was always required — as the very first canon in the sixty-seventh distinction, attributed to Anacletus, confirms. Finally, all ordinations were performed at certain appointed times of the year — so that no one could slip in quietly without the knowledge of the faithful, or be hastily advanced without proper witnesses.

In the selection of bishops, the people long enjoyed a protected freedom — no one was to be imposed on them against their will. The Council of Antioch therefore forbade forcing an unwanted bishop on any congregation. Leo I strongly affirmed this same principle. From this came such sayings as: 'Let him be chosen whom the clergy and the people, or the greater number, desire.' And: 'He who will rule over all must be chosen by all — for one who is made a ruler while unknown and unexamined is thrust in by force.' And further: 'Let him be chosen who is both selected by the clergy and desired by the people, and let him be consecrated by those of the province, with the judgment of the metropolitan.' The holy fathers guarded this people's freedom so carefully that when the general synod assembled at Constantinople ordained Nectarius, they would not proceed without the approval of the entire clergy and people — as they testified in a letter to the synod at Rome. Therefore when any bishop appointed his own successor, the appointment was not valid unless the whole people confirmed it. Augustine's account of the naming of Eradius provides not only an example but the very procedure used. And when Theodoret records that Athanasius named Peter as his successor, he immediately adds that the order of priests confirmed it, and the magistrate, the nobility, and the people approved it with their acclaiming voice.

I grant that it was also very reasonably established in the Council of Laodicea that the election should not be left to the crowds. It rarely happens that so many people can reach sound agreement together, and it is generally true that the uncommitted masses are pulled in opposite directions. But a very good remedy was employed to address this risk. First, only the clergy made the selection. Those they had chosen were then presented to the magistrate, or to the senate and the leading citizens. These leaders, after deliberation, confirmed the selection if they thought it good — or, if not, chose another whom they preferred. The matter was then brought to the whole congregation, who, while not strictly bound by these prior judgments, were less likely to be disorderly because of them. Or the process could begin with the congregation — but only to learn whom they most wanted. Once the people's wishes were heard, the clergy would then make their choice. In this way neither the clergy could appoint whoever they wished without accountability, nor were they required to follow the crowd's foolish desires. Leo sets out this order in another place, saying: 'The desires of the citizens are to be sought, the testimonies of the people, the judgment of the leading men, and the election of the clergy.' Again: 'Let the testimony of the leading men be obtained, the signature of the clergy, the consent of the order and the congregation — no reason allows it to be done otherwise.' The decree of the Laodicean synod means nothing other than this: that the clergy and the leading people should not allow themselves to be swept away by the undisciplined crowd, but rather with wisdom and calm gravity should restrain the people's misguided passions whenever the need arose.

This method of election was still in force in Gregory's time, and likely persisted long after. Many of his letters remain that give clear testimony of this. Whenever he had to deal with the appointment of a new bishop, he wrote to the clergy, to the order, and to the people — and sometimes to the civil authority as well, depending on the governance of the city. Even when — due to the disordered state of the church — he entrusted an adjoining bishop with overseeing the election, he always required a formal decree confirmed by the signatures of all. When Constantius was being made bishop of Milan, and many of the Milanese had fled to Genoa due to barbarian invasions, Gregory held that the election could not be valid unless those refugees were also summoned and gave their consent. Less than five hundred years ago, Pope Nicholas himself decreed concerning the election of the bishop of Rome that the cardinal bishops should begin the process, then bring in the rest of the clergy, and finally that the election should be confirmed by the consent of the people. He then cited the decree of Leo I that I mentioned earlier and ordered it to be observed from that point forward. And even if, through the wickedness of wicked men, the clergy were compelled to leave the city to conduct a valid election, Nicholas still required that some of the people be present with them. As for the emperor's consent, as far as I can determine, it was required only in the two churches of Rome and Constantinople — because those were the seats of imperial government. When Ambrose was sent to Milan with authority from Valentinian to oversee the election of a new bishop, that was an exceptional measure due to the bitter factional conflicts then raging among the citizens. At Rome in ancient times the emperor's authority carried great weight in the appointment of the bishop. Gregory himself says he was placed in the governance of the church by imperial command, even though by normal custom the people formally requested him. The procedure was this: once the clergy and people had designated a bishop, the clergy would bring the matter to the emperor, who would either confirm the election by his approval or void it by his disapproval. The decrees that Gratian compiles do not conflict with this custom — they simply say that the canonical election must not be set aside in favor of a king appointing a bishop according to his own pleasure, and that metropolitans must not consecrate anyone so installed by naked force. For there is a difference between robbing the church of its right so that everything is transferred to one man's preference, and giving an emperor or king the honor of confirming a legitimate election with his authority.

We must now address the form by which ministers of the church were admitted into their office after election. The Latins called this 'ordination' or 'consecration.' The Greeks called it 'cheirotonia' — literally, raising of hands — and sometimes also 'cheirothesia,' laying on of hands. Strictly speaking, 'cheirotonia' referred to the kind of election in which consent was expressed by the raising of hands. A decree of the Nicene Council required the metropolitan to gather all the bishops of the province to ordain the one who had been chosen. If some were prevented from attending by distance, illness, or some necessity, at least three were still required to be present, and those absent were to testify their consent in writing. This canon, after falling out of use through neglect, was renewed by many subsequent synods. All bishops — or at least all who had no valid excuse — were commanded to be present so that the learning and character of the one being ordained could receive a more thorough examination, for the proceedings were not carried out without such testing. Cyprian's words indicate that in ancient times the bishops were accustomed not to be summoned after the election but to be present at the election itself, and to serve as overseers so that nothing disorderly would happen among the crowd. Where he said the people have the power to choose worthy priests or refuse unworthy ones, he adds shortly after: 'Therefore, in accordance with the tradition of God and the apostles — which is still maintained among us and throughout virtually all provinces — all the neighboring bishops of the same province should come together to the people for whom a leader is being ordained, and the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people.' But when bishops were sometimes slow to gather and there was a risk that someone would exploit the delay to campaign for the position, it was decided that it would be sufficient for the bishops to assemble after the election and, following a lawful examination and approval, perform the consecration.

When this became the universal and unquestioned practice, a different custom gradually developed: those who had been chosen would travel to the metropolitan city to receive their ordination. This came about more through ambition and the corruption of the original practice than from any sound reason. Not long after, as the authority of the see of Rome grew, an even worse custom took hold: bishops from nearly all of Italy began to receive their consecration from Rome. This can be seen in the letters of Gregory. Only a few cities that did not readily surrender their rights preserved their ancient privilege — Milan being a notable example. Perhaps the only metropolitan cities kept their full privilege intact. All the bishops of a province were still accustomed to gather together in the chief city to consecrate the archbishop. The ceremony itself was the laying on of hands. I read of no other ceremony being used, except that at the solemn assembly the bishops wore a distinctive garment by which they could be identified as separate from the other priests. Priests and deacons were also ordained by the laying on of hands alone. Each bishop ordained his own priests, together with the company of priests around him. Though all participated together, because the bishop presided and the whole act was conducted under his direction, the ordination was said to be his. This is why the ancient writers so frequently say that a priest differs from a bishop in nothing except that he does not have the power to ordain.